Is architecture that simple?

Share

Those outside the industry rarely get just how complex the business of architecture is. Most think of a major new building in terms like “yeah, I like it” (or not), invariably referring to its appearance. Opinions are largely based on a few passing sightings or, at best, a visit or two.

Exhibit: Hamer Hall animation

But there’s much more to the business of architecture. What ultimately appears on a site is a complex set of trade-offs between a building’s key functions, construction cost, operating cost, aesthetics, it’s relationship to its surroundings, sustainability, regulations, and much, much more.

The ageing complex needed major changes to address contemporary needs and expectations. The original design was fortress-like in both appearance and function, turning its back on the street and river (which back then was much less attractive than it is now).

New technologies needed to be incorporated and functional spaces increased in size and useability. The original foyer spaces were small, circulation cramped, connection between levels tight and facilities limited (e.g. women’s toilets were notoriously inadequate). The acoustics in the hall – long an issue with performers – needed to be improved.

There was considerable risk and uncertainty around the project. The budget was inelastic, the timetable strict (the Centre was closed during construction) and there was doubt around the extent of work required and even the location of services.

To address the risk, management of the project was structured as an “alliance” of the key parties, who shared the risks and rewards. The parties were Arts Centre Melbourne (client), Major Projects Victoria (project manager), Baulderstone (builder) and ARM (architect).

Here’s a potted summary of (most of) the key design imperatives the alliance had to address:

Activate the public realm at the western end of the building currently used as a Blackbox and address compromises as a performance space due to sound transfer, structure and height limitations

Improve the accessibility and public use of the balcony and grass platform

Address inadequate spaces and overcrowding in the soundhouse spaces

Moreover, there was also a requirment to improve the operation of the foyer spaces, having regard to:

Inadequate service areas in the circle foyer bar, resulting in overcrowding and an inability to meet audience expectations or maximise commercial returns

Lack of space and inefficient vertical access in the foyer spaces

Constricted and internalised entrances

Inadequate connection with the river

Lack of permeability in the façade along the riverside – currently used for toilets, small offices and storage

This might read like a simple list to check off, but it’s far more complex. For example, enhancing the building’s visual and circulatory connection with the river would’ve been constrained by countervailing demands like the need to increase foyer space, enhance access to and from the performance space, and provide facilities for new or expanded revenue-generating functions.

The close proximity of historic Princes Bridge must’ve been an obstacle to a more expansive solution, too. Then there’re the more prosaic but real constraints like the budget, functional requirements and timetable. I’ve no doubt there are quite a few more.

I’m not discussing the merits of the adopted solution here (I’ll do that another time) but rather pointing to the range of factors that have to be given due regard and often traded-off in endless small and big compromises to arrive at a final solution. And were it a commercial project, there’d be another whole layer of complexity and pressure related to financing, marketing and cash flow.

How those various factors were weighted – and the experiments, false starts and dead-ends the team conducted in arriving at its preferred solution – would make for a fascinating discussion. Regrettably, that’s not the kind of stuff that tends to be shared publicly, but I think it would greatly enhance our appreciation of architecture, both for insiders and the rest of us, if it were.

There’s much more to the business of architecture than “yeah, I like it”.

Parker Alan:OAM.
Many moons ago when this project was first mooted I made an input regarding the importance of east to west safe bicycle access. Referred to in the potted summary below.

“Maintain connection between Alexandra Gardens and Southbank Promenade for pedestrians and cyclists.”

Good advice was supplied.
It was suggested that the definition of bicycle route be by the use of contrasting colours for the paved slabs along the route which must be clear of seats etc.
After that idea was first dumped I proposed that idea to another government department who employed an engineer/bicycle planner who also dumped the idea.
For several years complaints surfaced in the media how dangerous it was for both cyclists and pedestrians

Yes, Alan there’s obviously much more to architecture than ‘yeah I like it’, especially for a particularly complex and constrained refurbishment of a major public building like the Concert Hall. Planners like yourself and readers of your blog would know that. It is also true as you point out that many people would pass a judgement just on looks, so looks are important, but probably just as many on whether a place works (for them as users), especially again for a major public building like the Concert Hall. All that seems rather obvious. Are perhaps expressing surprise at the complexity of this particular project ? If you want to know more you can listen to the architects and other stakeholders here http://soundofbuildings.com/Hamer-Hall-1

melburnite:

Thanks, really good link, worth listening to. My first degree is in architecture so I’m not really surprised, but it’s my experience that what’s obvious to those “in the trade” isn’t always, or even usually, obvious to the great majority who aren’t. AD